Anything not specifically concerning politics in the UK or geopolitics involving the UK will be considered spam and removed.

While robust debate is encouraged, at least try to keep things civil. This sub is for people with a wide variety of views, and as such you will come across content, views and people you don't agree with. Political views from a wide spectrum are tolerated here.

Articles from The Times and other paywall sites should be rehosted, though credit should be given. Direct links to behind a paywall will be considered spam and removed.

Headline titles should be changed only where it improves clarity. Headline changes that introduce editorialization or rhetoric will be removed. Please express your personal opinion in the comments, not the headline. The subhead or a line from the 1st paragraph are accepted as well, although the headline is preferable.

If you want to discuss a specific point of an article rather than the article itself then please use a self post for this.

Links to long form journalism/analysis that are older than 12 months should be tagged with the month and year of publishing. News articles that are older than 2 months should be submitted as part of a text post detailing why they are relevant today.

All polls submitted should be in the form of a self post, not a link.

Tweets are acceptable, so long as they are from journalists, pollsters, politicians and so forth. Tweets from random members of the public are not.

Submissions or comments complaining about the moderation, biases or users of other subreddits will be removed.

These problems have proliferated because of the concentration of power in the hands of a few platforms – including Facebook, Google, and Twitter – which “control which ideas and opinions are seen and shared”.

“What was once a rich selection of blogs and websites has been compressed under the powerful weight of a few dominant platforms,” said the 62-year-old British computer scientist.

Today is the world wide web’s 28th birthday. Here’s a message from our founder and web inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee on how the web has evolved, and what we must do to ensure it fulfils his vision of an equalising platform that benefits all of humanity.

Today marks 28 years since I submitted my original proposal for the world wide web. I imagined the web as an open platform that would allow everyone, everywhere to share information, access opportunities and collaborate across geographic and cultural boundaries. In many ways, the web has lived up to this vision, though it has been a recurring battle to keep it open. But over the past 12 months, I’ve become increasingly worried about three new trends, which I believe we must tackle in order for the web to fulfill its true potential as a tool which serves all of humanity.

1) We’ve lost control of our personal data
The current business model for many websites offers free content in exchange for personal data. Many of us agree to this - albeit often by accepting long and confusing terms and conditions documents - but fundamentally we do not mind some information being collected in exchange for free services. But, we’re missing a trick. As our data is then held in proprietary silos, out of sight to us, we lose out on the benefits we could realise if we had direct control over this data, and chose when and with whom to share it. What’s more, we often do not have any way of feeding back to companies what data we’d rather not share - especially with third parties - the T&Cs are all or nothing.

This widespread data collection by companies also has other impacts. Through collaboration with - or coercion of - companies, governments are also increasingly watching our every move online, and passing extreme laws that trample on our rights to privacy. In repressive regimes, it’s easy to see the harm that can be caused – bloggers can be arrested or killed, and political opponents can be monitored. But even in countries where we believe governments have citizens’ best interests at heart, watching everyone, all the time is simply going too far. It creates a chilling effect on free speech and stops the web from being used as a space to explore important topics, like sensitive health issues, sexuality or religion.

2) It’s too easy for misinformation to spread on the web
Today, most people find news and information on the web through just a handful of social media sites and search engines. These sites make more money when we click on the links they show us. And, they choose what to show us based on algorithms which learn from our personal data that they are constantly harvesting. The net result is that these sites show us content they think we’ll click on – meaning that misinformation, or ‘fake news’, which is surprising, shocking, or designed to appeal to our biases can spread like wildfire. And through the use of data science and armies of bots, those with bad intentions can game the system to spread misinformation for financial or political gain.

3) Political advertising online needs transparency and understanding
Political advertising online has rapidly become a sophisticated industry. The fact that most people get their information from just a few platforms and the increasing sophistication of algorithms drawing upon rich pools of personal data, means that political campaigns are now building individual adverts targeted directly at users. One source suggests that in the 2016 US election, as many as 50,000 variations of adverts were being served every single day on Facebook, a near-impossible situation to monitor. And there are suggestions that some political adverts – in the US and around the world - are being used in unethical ways – to point voters to fake news sites, for instance, or to keep others away from the polls. Targeted advertising allows a campaign to say completely different, possibly conflicting things to different groups. Is that democratic?

These are complex problems, and the solutions will not be simple. But a few broad paths to progress are already clear. We must work together with web companies to strike a balance that puts a fair level of data control back in the hands of people, including the development of new technology like personal “data pods” if needed and exploring alternative revenue models like subscriptions and micropayments. We must fight against government over-reach in surveillance laws, including through the courts if necessary. We must push back against misinformation by encouraging gatekeepers such as Google and Facebook to continue their efforts to combat the problem, while avoiding the creation of any central bodies to decide what is “true” or not. We need more algorithmic transparency to understand how important decisions that affect our lives are being made, and perhaps a set of common principles to be followed. We urgently need to close the “internet blind spot” in the regulation of political campaigning.

Our team at the Web Foundation will be working on many of these issues as part of our new five year strategy - researching the problems in more detail, coming up with proactive policy solutions and bringing together coalitions to drive progress towards a web that gives equal power and opportunity to all. I urge you to support our work however you can - by spreading the word, keeping up pressure on companies and governments or by making a donation. We’ve also compiled a directory of other digital rights organisations around the world for you to explore and consider supporting too.

I may have invented the web, but all of you have helped to create what it is today. All the blogs, posts, tweets, photos, videos, applications, web pages and more represent the contributions of millions of you around the world building our online community. All kinds of people have helped, from politicians fighting to keep the web open, standards organisations like W3C enhancing the power, accessibility and security of the technology, and people who have protested in the streets. In the past year, we have seen Nigerians stand up to a social media bill that would have hampered free expression online, popular outcry and protests at regional internet shutdowns in Cameroon and great public support for net neutrality in both India and the European Union.

It has taken all of us to build the web we have, and now it is up to all of us to build the web we want - for everyone. If you would like to be more involved, then do join our mailing list, do contribute to us, do join or donate to any of the organisations which are working on these issues around the world.

Problem 2 is, in my opinion, only a problem since a lot of people take what they read for granted. If I read something on social media, I don't assume it's true by default.

I also don't understand how social media is any different then reading the Daily Mail. No matter what, anything you read will always have some form of bias. Some have more then other, but to write an enjoyable article, there has to be some bias.

I don't expect everyone to become an online researcher, but when it comes to elections and important things you care about, then sure you can do a minute long Google search to check if a certain fact passes, at the very least, a quick feasibility test.

There is no law or regulations I can think of to make people be more critical of the information they receive. People might argue that website only mention facts, which works for things that are black and white. But most things in life exist in a continuum of gray, where a statement can be partially factual, or technically factual.

Problem 2 is, in my opinion, only a problem since a lot of people take what they read for granted. If I read something on social media, I don't assume it's true by default.

Your opinion and psychology are in disagreement. Your views are inevitably shaped by the media you consume, regardless of what your conscious thoughts on the matter may be. That's why modern advertising exists.

I don't expect everyone to become an online researcher, but when it comes to elections and important things you care about, then sure you can do a minute long Google search to check if a certain fact passes, at the very least, a quick feasibility test.

Except nobody does this, and every time I see this line I'm reminded of this thread. Even people who trumpet fact-checking don't fact-check. It sounds good in theory, but in reality it's a fantasy. You scan through the front page of a news subreddit, you just absorbed 25 headlines (likely giving extra weight to the ones that support your preconceptions), you gonna go verify them all? Of course not. At best, you might apply skepticism to one story you especially dislike, but that's just another form of bias.

Do you mean you’re OK with humans’ inherent tendency to trust blindly?

I could honestly make do without that.

I think it’s an education as much as a technology problem. But technology is shapeless – we shape it in any way we see fit, and at the moment we are shaping it to exacerbate flaws in human psychology for the benefit of shareholders and to the detriment of our democracy, our wallets, our society, mental health, freedom, and happiness.

There are two new problems ... one is that it is easier to distribute completely false information. It is at least possible in principle to sue the Daily Mail, and that possibility exercises a degree of restraint. The 2nd new problem is the way in which search engines can skew what you see, reinforcing information bubbles. I came across an interesting example last year, in my role as amateur beekeeper. Hear in the UK people are worried about an Asian Hornet, an exotic pest which is attacking bees in France but has not yet established itself in the UK. Two of the top 3 hits returned by a search for information about how to recognise the Asian Hornet give false information. I raised the issue in a couple of places last year, and one version of the false information was removed, but google just points to another copy of the same picture now. With some effort it is possible to spot the false information, but it gets harder as time goes on.

Indonesians surveyed by Galpaya told her that they didn’t use the internet. But in focus groups, they would talk enthusiastically about how much time they spent on Facebook.

We have more [facebook users than Internet users](Indonesians surveyed by Galpaya told her that they didn’t use the internet. But in focus groups, they would talk enthusiastically about how much time they spent on Facebook.) in many countries on Earth, I think the issue is becoming deeper. The limit to facebooks growth is how many people are connected, hence the sponsorship of getting people online. But to be fair, 5% of Americans think that facebook is the internet and given some of the local facebook groups I've seen, wouldn't surprise me that people in the UK think similarly.

I think something that is often overlooked is the Americanisation that comes with the dominance of US tech companies as they can often passively enforce US values into our online spaces through design choice, community rules etc.

I wasn't really meaning the actual users of the Web, but more how values of the companies themselves become influential. For example YouTube is OK with graphic violence but not light nudity. This reflects American values, but is enforced on European countries who might see it a different way. Over time, this could create an increasingly American set of cultural norms. Obviously films, TV etc already do this, but in a way this more under the radar.

There was an article about Icelandic dying out due to technology and the problems this could pose and while it's not completely applicable to the UK it shows that we don't really know what the long term ramifications could be.

This video provides a good insight to why European tech companies and firms are falling behind the US and China, specifically the lack of platforms and infrastructures created by European companies. Think of Google, Apple, Microsoft. All American based and founded, most devices, software and services everyone uses is from one of these three.

But on the other hand, America is a lot more internally transparent to the world that it might wish: for instance, the Russians who wanted to propagandize to some key demographics and regions had but to read politico or 538.

If there are ways of gaming the system, some people will game the system - doesn't really matter what type of system it is. Corruption has been a part of every society. What matters is to ensure that safeguards exist to curtail the impact of, and opportunities for, corruption. Unfortunately most of these mechanisms are horrifically dated when it comes to talking about western political models.

The thing is that Google owns a market share by being the best. Breaking it up would ultimately be pointless because of that. If you want to search something, you go to google. You don't go to Bing or Ask Jeeves because they aren't as good and if they broke Google up, people would still go to whatever part had the Google search engine.

He's given his views on DRM before: even if the web community doesn't make a standardised DRM solution (e.g. ClearKey, via Encrypted Media Extensions), bespoke DRM have emerged and will still emerge (e.g. Microsoft's PlayReady, via OIPF's DRM Agent). Many of these, like PlayReady, have already been around for years (since 2007). At least with implementations like ClearKey, it's an open standard and the content providers don't have to pay a fee to generate tokens.

To reiterate: we already have non-standard DRMs on the web (they're all over Smart TV apps). Tim Berners-Lee is just championing an open, standardised, ultimately cross-platform one.

Creating a standard for an oppressive technology that doesn't fulfil its primary purpose anyway is stupid, as is the justification of "well they'd do it anyway". I'd rather they did do it anyway; then users could move onto a service that doesn't force DRM upon them. Or, if they all do, they can stop paying for those services; a message to content publishers that they can't continue to sell media the way they're used to.

How do you suggest that video-on-demand services like AppleTV (pay-as-you-go), Netflix (subscription-supported), and Ketchup (advertising-supported) prevent users from just digging up the URLs to their media and ripping them, then?

There are all sorts of modern monetisation models for VoD, meaning not every service is a 'dinosaur', but if you want to convince licence-holders to license their content for your use, then your service needs some form of DRM to prevent their content from being stolen.

The premise of your argument is incorrect because DRM does not work. Everything put onto Netflix is available elsewhere moments later, same goes for the others you've mentioned. This is 100% unavoidable with DRM.

DRM is non-functional. Its use is somewhere between ideological and giving the media dinosaurs the feeling that something is being done, despite the fact that said something does nothing other than inconvenience their own customers.

Loads of DRM is invasive, but Netflix is fine. Also DRM is not about making piracy impossible, just slowing it down. Similar to how you lock your door, knowing anyone could break in if they wanted but the lock offers a mild barrier.

Neither do locks but we use them across the world in their millions. If someone wants to get into your house while you're sleeping and murder you, there is literally nothing stopping them. We dont react by removing all locks.

A lock in this case is more like the need to buy it in the first place, or find somewhere safe to pirate it.

Also, locks do work, at least insofar as they delay the thief. DRM does not stop pirates, particularly with video content. And in exchange for that, it makes the experience worse for the user (example in previous comment).

Tech firms are so hierarchical, it's a little gross. The cult of personality that surrounds many of their executives (Hello Muskbois) is fucking concerning.

Amazon has basically monopolised its market, with all of the money made going straight to 1 cunt at the top who now owns enough to feed the world for decades. All the meanwhile its workers are being fucked by long hours for fuck all wages.

There's a myriad of better ways to contact them, best of all through email where you have to actually think about what you're writing and provide some kind of contact details if you actually want some follow through.

Social media just makes drive-by vitriol the new normal, and MPs are guilty of it just as much.

Take it out of the equation as a source of political 'news' and that'll have a positive knock-on effect for our media.

That is true about the vitriol. Just because it's being misused doesn't mean the tool itself is bad. I think making it easier for people to be heard is a good thing. I like the idea but in reality it's abused.

Being able to phone/walk into/email your constituency is easy and it's easy as it needs to be (maybe a little too fucking easy if we think of Jo Cox). Making something 'easy' isn't an exponential curve of 'good'.

There is nothing stopping users migrating away from the big media-owned sites to small independent ones like users did in the late-90s early 2000's. We're seeing people leaving Facebook.

But back then, webmasters ran their sites as a hobby or out of love for the subject, but now a webpage is an income stream. Being present on the big sites provides advertising revenue and drives views.

It's rarely about authors producing material for a niche audience, but more about getting as large an audience as possible.

I have faith that the market will move away from overbearing sites, but I worry that too many would-be website owners have now been influenced to think that's the only model.

Tim Berners Lee developed a hypertext transfer protocol while working as a contractor for CERN... while I don't want to dismiss his accomplishments, he is too often cited as "the inventor of the internet" when in reality what he invented was part of the technology that led to the "world wide web".

I find him irksome these days, as he often gets wheeled out to give his 2-pence on complex legal-ethical-moral aspects of the internet that he is no more qualified to discuss than you or I. At the end of the day he developed one small part of the webs technologies back in 1978. Unfortunately it seems it has been convenient for various powers that be to declare him "the inventor of the internet" for a whole range of agendas... i.e. putting a British (remember the cringeworthy olympic ceremony?), CERN or EU stamp on the internet when in reality it's origins actually lay in the early packet-switching networks developed in the USA 20 years earlier. As humble as Tim is, it's not exactly been in his interest to downplay his invention so he tends to play up to the "the inventor of the internet" label.

It's a bit like asking the inventor of the steam engine what he thinks about the planned route of HS2.

And while Tim advocated a weak hypertext as a solution, we often forget Ted 'Theodore' Nelson's original strong hypertext designs of the Xanadu project that already had solutions - at least, discussions - of the issues we're now facing.

Ted had the vision. Tim had a client-server first draft that only was not optimised to be resilient to models of commercialisation outside academia.

Your entire argument is that people try to paint him as the inventor of the internet, yet the only source you provide specifically says World Wide Web. Only ignorant people that don't know the difference think he invented the actual internet. Also you say he developed it in 1978 whereas I'm pretty sure it was at least a decade after that.

The argument still stands. If the article were "Tim Berners-Lee says that we should strangle puppies ritually to appease the moon god" then I might raise an eyebrow but him invoking his status to push for a very valid concern is the sort of thing only people with high status can achieve.

You have a point. I would consider Charles Kao to have a bigger claim to be the 'inventor' of the internet as it's his fibre optic technology that is used to send data across the world. We seem to wheel out Tim Berners Lee when all he's contributed is a way for computers to handle web communications. It's not a remarkable invention by any means.